Creston wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 11:34:While I abhor the Westboro Baptist Church (or the fact they call themselves baptist when they are just a cult designed to make money out of lawsuits), the idea that Anonymous is going to decide what is acceptable free speech and what isn't is just as appalling.You can't claim to be in favor of free speech (or free anything, really), and then rail out against it when people use it to say or do something you don't like. Sadly, this is something a lot of people in the US still fail to understand.

I think WBC's idea to picket the elementary school is disgusting, but it DOES fall under free speech.

Creston

Liberals do that all the time though.

Conservatives do this ^ all the time.

Not even conservative. He's just a troll.

Fiscally I'm conservative, as in I'll be laughing at you idiot libs when we go bankrupt in a few years saying I told you so.

Being single and planning to stay that way, I'm not sure I'm truly able to answer that question. What I can say is, I hope I could ignore it. I hope my intellect would be powerful enough to override any emotional reaction -- since I would only be rewarding them for their heinous activity by reacting.

Now imagine for a moment that you are one of the parents attending the funeral of your recently murdered child. You are experiencing the worst pain and grief that you could ever imagine. You wonder how you will be able to continuing living in the wake of such horror and despair. This is as bad as life gets.

Now imagine a crowd of belligerent, hate-mongering assholes off to the side chanting and holding signs displaying slogans such as "Thank God for Killing Your Child!" and "Your Child is in Hell! Praise the Lord!".

Now ask yourself, would you ignore that? Could you ignore that?

If your answer is "no" as I imagine would be the case for most people, then perhaps we need to do more than just "ignore them".

I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness.

As someone stated, "free speech" doesn't mean you can say anything you want anywhere you want. Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie house being a well-known exception. Should their protest be "protected" speech? Assuming it is a peaceful protest executed on public property, unfortunately it probably should be. Stop their peaceful protest and it sets a bad precedent.

Also as someone else said, they are idiots/assholes looking for attention and the chance to sue someone. Our best defense, ignore them.

Creston wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 11:34:While I abhor the Westboro Baptist Church (or the fact they call themselves baptist when they are just a cult designed to make money out of lawsuits), the idea that Anonymous is going to decide what is acceptable free speech and what isn't is just as appalling.You can't claim to be in favor of free speech (or free anything, really), and then rail out against it when people use it to say or do something you don't like. Sadly, this is something a lot of people in the US still fail to understand.

I think WBC's idea to picket the elementary school is disgusting, but it DOES fall under free speech.

Creston wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 11:34:While I abhor the Westboro Baptist Church (or the fact they call themselves baptist when they are just a cult designed to make money out of lawsuits), the idea that Anonymous is going to decide what is acceptable free speech and what isn't is just as appalling.You can't claim to be in favor of free speech (or free anything, really), and then rail out against it when people use it to say or do something you don't like. Sadly, this is something a lot of people in the US still fail to understand.

I think WBC's idea to picket the elementary school is disgusting, but it DOES fall under free speech.

Creston wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 11:34:While I abhor the Westboro Baptist Church (or the fact they call themselves baptist when they are just a cult designed to make money out of lawsuits), the idea that Anonymous is going to decide what is acceptable free speech and what isn't is just as appalling.

You can't claim to be in favor of free speech (or free anything, really), and then rail out against it when people use it to say or do something you don't like. Sadly, this is something a lot of people in the US still fail to understand.

I think WBC's idea to picket the elementary school is disgusting, but it DOES fall under free speech.

Creston

This would apply if anyone gave a millionth of a shit about WBC's exhaustive stretch of the right to "free speech"

Creston wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 11:34:While I abhor the Westboro Baptist Church (or the fact they call themselves baptist when they are just a cult designed to make money out of lawsuits), the idea that Anonymous is going to decide what is acceptable free speech and what isn't is just as appalling.You can't claim to be in favor of free speech (or free anything, really), and then rail out against it when people use it to say or do something you don't like. Sadly, this is something a lot of people in the US still fail to understand.

I think WBC's idea to picket the elementary school is disgusting, but it DOES fall under free speech.

LesCaster wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 14:23:I'm pretty certain had Westboro Baptist Church been active back in the day, the authors of the First Amendment probably would've rethought their position on the matter. Picketing at the funeral of murdered children in front of their grieving parents should never be protected under any circumstances. I have no problem with anybody who wants prevent that from happening, First Amendment be damned.

The founders were pretty absolutist on the rights. That's why they enshrined them in the constitution. And they lived those rights, like when John Adams represented the British in the Boston Massacre. As others mentioned, where do you draw the line? Germany, Canada, & the UK get on pretty well with restrictions on the most egregious kinds of speech, but every now and then you hear of cases that wouldn't happen in the USA. For example, when Rab Florence got whacked from Eurogamer for his comments about Lauren Wainright, b/c she threatened to sue. That would never happen in the US due to the first amendment protections.

Longjocks wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 16:52:If they were to do this, would their time not be better spent attacking those who give them air time? It's the only 'power' WBC have.

Bingo. The only reason these psychos are still doing this shit is because they've found a sick way to profit from it. Take away the attention and they fade away.

I would also settle for taking away their oxygen.

I don't think this is correct. Living in the South you learn what the term "religious fanatic" really means. The majority of Christians are decent people who can empathize with everyone (even gays and atheists) and just have a distorted prism through which they view the world. But there is no denying that fanatics are common, and in their fervor to please their own interpretation of what "God" is, they will do it whether they have an audience or not. When they protest dead soldiers' funerals, it's only partly in the hope that they get reviled and hated because this fits their distorted version of "grace through persecution". Mostly they just are happy knowing they are doing "God's will'.

That said, hacking their websites or even personal accounts does nothing accept motivate them further (remember - grace in persecution). It also does nothing to allay the suffering they cause to the families if the deceased - could you imagine the horror of attending the funeral of a beloved parent, spouse, or child and seeing people celebrating their death? I would shoot each and every one of them dead on the spot. Find a way to make every one of the these Westboro loons to take a dirt nap without getting caught - THAT would be something I could get behind.

This comment was edited on Dec 17, 2012, 17:52.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

First off, it's not "free" speech. It's protected speech. There are limits to what you can say. Contrary to what some claim here, no, you can't engage in hate speech as the USSC has stated prior that, words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas." do not qualify as protected speech. In other words if provocation by way of - again USSC - "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is all you're trying to do, then it cannot reasonably be considered protected speech.

Remember, since the Magna Carta on down all our concepts of law and justice are predicated on what's considered "reasonable" - at least in spirit. Taking anything to its extreme end is unwise, if not outright foolish. All reasonable people agree that there have to be limits to what people can and can't do in a society. The law - again in spirit at least - is supposed to reflect that. There are no absolute guarantees of anything. Thinking and acting as if there should be no limits is sophomoric at best.

The legal pendulum tends to swing back and forth on these issues anyway. Though the WBC got away with this nonsense in 2011 there was also the lack of public and political will there at the time. If these clowns go and do this you'll see a firestorm of a backlash that hasn't been see in America in a very long time. Regretfully, it might even be better off for the rest of us if they are stupid enough to do this. While it won't stop them from thinking as they do, it'll certainly make it harder for them to hurt and insult others, and to recruit and spread their message of hate. Anything that makes the life more difficult of assholes like that is something we should all be for.

"There are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldn’t associate with.” - Damon Runyan

Creston wrote on Dec 17, 2012, 14:41:Again, I'm not defending the WBC here. They are a worthless bunch of fucking degenerates, but it's a quick and slippery slope to censure. And the people who will eventually wind up WHAT needs to be censured will rarely feel the same way about it as you and I do.

Creston

I agree with you 100%. However, I also support Anon's attacks (both legal and illegal) on them. WBC have the right to say whatever they want, but the consequences may be more than they bargained for...

Good to see Anonymous spending their time in a valuable way. When I want to solve my community problems I just go and beat up a drunken loud-mouth in a bar. Every time I do that we prosper. It's science.

If they were to do this, would their time not be better spent attacking those who give them air time? It's the only 'power' WBC have.

That sounds easy, but it doesn't actually answer Creston's point. Who decides?

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that, right or wrong, the question of First Amendment rights don't even factor into my feelings right now and I'm more than comfortable looking the other way should the WBC's rights get trampled.

Exactly. This isn't even a question of the law, Anonymous isn't claiming to be the arbiter of anything, they are just doing something about it regardless of the legality. Is that ok? No. Do I give a shit considering the poor taste exhibited by the WBC? No.

That sounds easy, but it doesn't actually answer Creston's point. Who decides?

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that, right or wrong, the question of First Amendment rights don't even factor into my feelings right now and I'm more than comfortable looking the other way should the WBC's rights get trampled.

I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness.

Picketing at the funeral of murdered children in front of their grieving parents.

That sounds easy, but it doesn't actually answer Creston's point. Who decides? Someone ultimately has to and it's easy to make a decision here but it won't be long until something that comes up which isn't so easy and we might be royally pissed off to find things banned which we don't want banned, like picketing the White House, and being fed lies about how this is also a popular measure that's important in the name of common decency.